The Refugee Crisis Ending the war in Syria is critical

The current migrant crisis has defied every effort to find a solution. How can this crisis be resolved, and what are its likely repercussions for Europe and for the United States?

At the European Union Summit on Dec. 17-18, a proposal to gain control over Europe’s external borders and to manage migration flows by creating a European Border and Coast Guard Agency was discussed. But the plan faced severe resistance from several members, who viewed it as an assault on their national sovereignty. Consequently, summit members failed to take decisive action and set a six-month deadline to further consider the plan.

The crisis continues to intensify, with more than 60 million people in 2015 either displaced within their own countries or having crossed the border, fleeing war, persecution, or poverty, and seeking a better life in Europe. European countries are overwhelmed and unable to cope with the influx of migrants. More than 4 million Syrians fleeing civil war are seeking refuge in other countries. Neighboring Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey are overburdened with huge numbers of migrants — 2 million have already entered Turkey alone.

The 8-mile sea crossing between Turkey and the Greek island of Lesbos is the preferred route for entry into Europe. Almost 3,000 migrants a day landed on Lesbos in November.

The European Union is proud of having agreed 20 years ago through the Schengen Agreement to have its internal borders remain open for free movement, with only Britain and Ireland as exceptions. But border controls, barbed wire and chain-link fences are now familiar sights on many borders.

Almost 200,000 refugees entered Germany since the beginning of November, and it opened its doors to almost 1.1 million migrants in 2015. President Angela Merkel, who symbolizes open Europe, has come under criticism from her own party and from many Germans.

Under international law, each country has the sovereign right to choose who enters and on what terms. And the definition of “refugee” is specific and pretty strict, as only a person with a well-founded fear of persecution is entitled to seek asylum.

None of the following “durable solutions” currently seems feasible: (1) after a temporary stay, the refugee returns to his country of origin when circumstances have abated (with the Syrian conflict raging, such repatriation is not possible); (2) local integration in the country giving asylum, which is unlikely, given the huge number of migrants; and (3) a third-country settlement, which is not an option, either.

This disaster cannot be resolved without an end to the Syrian war, which in turn would advance the efforts to defeat ISIS. The recent U.N. initiatives are promising, although there is still no agreement on the future role of Bashar al-Assad.

In the U.S., the San Bernardino shootings resulted in many governors announcing that they will deny entry to any Syrian asylum-seeker. Despite assurances by the administration that federal intelligence agencies and Homeland Security are effectively vetting all asylum-seekers, there is resistance to the U.S. accepting even 10,000 Syrians in the next two years.

With countries such as Canada, Germany, and Britain willing to take larger numbers, the U.S. is receiving criticism. The migrant crisis is a grave challenge, not only for Europeans, but for all humanity. Ved Nanda (vnanda@law. du.edu) is Thompson G. Marsh Professor of Law and Director of the Nanda Center for International and Comparative Law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.